Opinion
COA22-215
12-20-2022
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMIE DONTE COLEMAN
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Alvin W. Keller, Jr., for the State. Sean P. Vitrano for defendant.
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 October 2022.
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 4 August 2021 by Judge Richard Kent Harrell in Pender County Superior Court. Pender County, No. 19 CRS 50655
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Alvin W. Keller, Jr., for the State.
Sean P. Vitrano for defendant.
DIETZ, Judge.
¶ 1 Defendant Jamie Coleman appeals his conviction for first degree murder after he shot and killed a man lying on the ground outside a pool hall. On appeal, Coleman challenges the trial court's admission of evidence concerning a fight Coleman engaged in shortly before the murder and evidence that Coleman fired a gun at a woman standing by a car outside Coleman's home the morning after the murder.
¶ 2 As explained below, Coleman has not shown that the admission of the evidence from the night of the murder was plain error and has not shown that admission of the evidence from the morning after the murder was prejudicial error. We therefore find no plain error in part, and no prejudicial error in part, in the trial court's judgment.
Facts and Procedural History
¶ 3 In April 2019, Defendant Jamie Coleman was at an event at Murphy's pool room in Ivanhoe. Eddie Harvey also was at Murphy's that night and had been drinking. Harvey began speaking to Coleman's mother, Theresa. After getting a drink, Coleman saw Harvey, who appeared intoxicated, "bothering" and "rubbing on" Coleman's mother. Coleman and his roommate, Eric Pigford, attacked Harvey, knocking him down, before beating and stomping on him as he lay on the ground. Harvey recalled hearing someone say, "Why are you talking to my mother," and then the next thing he remembered was waking up in an ambulance and later being treated at the hospital.
¶ 4 At the time, Dakota Moore and Faith Murphy were outside at a food truck. They heard a commotion inside and then Coleman came out, approached Moore and said, "You need to get your boy before I do something to him." Coleman and Moore began to argue, and Coleman punched Moore in the face. Coleman's brother Marcus, who was also nearby, then hit Moore on the side of the head with a bottle. Moore drew a gun in response and shot Marcus, killing him. Pigford then shot Moore several times, causing Moore to fall to the ground.
¶ 5 Coleman went to his car, retrieved an AR-15-style firearm with no stock, and returned to where Moore was laying on the ground. Faith Murphy pleaded with Coleman "just please don't shoot him. Don't shoot him." Coleman responded, "he shot my brother," and struck Murphy in the mouth, splitting her lip. Coleman then shot Moore multiple times as he lay on the ground. Moore died from his injuries.
¶ 6 Pigford fled the crime scene immediately after he initially shot Moore, before Coleman had returned with the AR-15. Pigford threw his weapon into a nearby creek. After midnight, he returned home and found Coleman crying and repeatedly saying, "I got my brother killed." Coleman eventually went to sleep. The next morning, Coleman woke up and saw someone, later identified as Tranita Lloyd, standing near a car in the yard outside his house. Coleman grabbed a nearby firearm and fired ten rounds in the direction of the woman and her car.
¶ 7 Law enforcement ultimately located Coleman in Wilmington a week after the shooting and arrested him. The State charged Coleman with first degree murder for the death of Dakota Moore. Coleman went to trial and the jury found him guilty. The trial court sentenced Coleman to life in prison without parole. Coleman appealed.
Analysis
I. Rule 404(b) evidence of assault before the shooting
¶ 8 Coleman first argues that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of his assault of Eddie Harvey shortly before the murder of Dakota Moore. The State introduced this evidence to establish Coleman's intent with respect to the murder.
¶ 9 Coleman acknowledges that, although he filed a motion in limine to exclude this evidence, he did not timely raise an objection to the evidence when it was introduced at trial. He therefore asks this Court to review the issue for plain error. See State v. Anthony, 271 N.C.App. 749, 752, 845 S.E.2d 452, 455 (2020).
¶ 10 "For error to constitute plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that a fundamental error occurred at trial." State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 518, 723 S.E.2d 326, 334 (2012). "To show that an error was fundamental, a defendant must establish prejudice-that, after examination of the entire record, the error had a probable impact on the jury's finding that the defendant was guilty." Id. In other words, the defendant must show that, "absent the error, the jury probably would have returned a different verdict." Id. at 519, 723 S.E.2d at 335. Plain error should be "applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case" where the error seriously affects "the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Id. at 518, 723 S.E.2d at 334.
¶ 11 Rule 404(b) prohibits introduction of evidence used solely to show the character of a person and that the person acted in conformity with that character. But the rule is one of inclusion, and permits the use of that evidence for any other reason, including "as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, entrapment or accident." N.C. R. Evid. 404(b). Once a proper purpose is established under Rule 404(b), the evidence is admissible so long as the "the incidents are sufficiently similar and not so remote in time as to be more probative than prejudicial" under the balancing test of Rule 403. State v. Boyd, 321 N.C. 574, 577, 364 S.E.2d 118, 119 (1988).
¶ 12 Among other grounds to admit evidence under Rule 404(b) is the "chain of circumstances" or "complete story" doctrine, which permits the introduction of evidence that "forms part of the history of the event or serves to enhance the natural development of the facts." State v. Agee, 326 N.C. 542, 547-48, 391 S.E.2d 171, 174 (1990). Evidence of the sequence of events surrounding the commission of a charged crime can be particularly important to establish a defendant's intent, which is typically proven through surrounding circumstances rather than direct evidence of the defendant's state of mind. See State v. Vause, 328 N.C. 231, 238, 400 S.E.2d 57, 62 (1991).
¶ 13 Here, Coleman violently assaulted Eddie Harvey before he killed Dakota Moore. The evidence of this earlier assault explained why Coleman later confronted Moore-specifically, his anger at Harvey's behavior towards Coleman's mother and the connection between Harvey and Moore. The evidence permitted the jury to understand Coleman's state of mind, why he confronted Moore, and the circumstances of the conflict that led to Moore's death. Agee, 326 N.C. at 547-48, 391 S.E.2d at 174. This evidence was admissible to show the chain of circumstances and establish intent, and it was close enough in time to satisfy the balancing test under Rule 403. We therefore find no error, and certainly no plain error, in the admission of this evidence.
II. Rule 404(b) evidence of gunfire the morning after the shooting
¶ 14 Coleman next argues that the trial court erred by allowing evidence that, the morning after shooting Dakota Moore, Coleman awoke and fired multiple gunshots at a person and a parked car in his yard. The parties devote significant portions of their briefing to competing arguments concerning whether this conduct, which occurred the morning after Moore's killing, properly could be admitted under Rule 404(b) to prove Coleman's intent or state of mind the previous night, or to further develop the "complete story" of the crime. But even assuming that admission of this evidence was error, Coleman has not established that it is a reversible error.
¶ 15 An evidentiary error "is not prejudicial unless there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at trial." State v. Babich, 252 N.C.App. 165, 172, 797 S.E.2d 359, 364 (2017). Here, there is no reasonable possibility that, without the testimony of Coleman's actions the morning after the shooting, the jury would not have found Coleman guilty. The State's evidence included detailed testimony proving all the essential elements of first degree murder.
¶ 16 Specifically, after Moore shot Coleman's brother, Coleman walked to his car and retrieved a firearm. Faith Murphy testified that as Coleman returned with the firearm, she attempted to turn him away by pleading "just please don't shoot him. Don't shoot him." Coleman then responded that "he shot my brother" and struck Murphy in the mouth, splitting her lip.
¶ 17 Eric Pigford testified that Moore had already "holstered his weapon" after Moore shot Marcus Coleman. Moreover, when Coleman returned, Pigford had already shot Moore, leaving Moore vulnerable. Although Moore was no longer wielding his own gun, Coleman testified that he was "standing over" Moore and looked into the "white in his eyes" before shooting him. The security DVR captured much of this sequence of events and corroborated the witness testimony. In light of this evidence, we find no prejudicial error in the admission of the challenged testimony.
Conclusion
¶ 18 We find no plain error in part, and no prejudicial error in part, in the trial court's judgment.
NO PLAIN ERROR IN PART; NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN PART.
Judges CARPENTER and GORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).